Showing Posts For splat.8169:
OP has a point though. this system is not able to cope with current max population of ppl interested in wvw.
I’ll note that tier 4 has all maps queued as well.
I’ll suggest that perhaps at max population, we can queue 16 maps. we’ve established that in general we can’t queue 32 maps in NA. (8 tiers 4 maps)
perhaps a suggestion?
redevelop around 24-25 maps. 1 map per server and some common map. and then unbind the tiering system. There would be some problems with map design on where you spawn different factions.
optionally, add a map to each matchup ie: 3 bls, EB and some other map. although with some of the queuing one map may not be enough.
congratulations on making it to the midpoint.
I reckon your success rate will just improve.
you probably are jumping from too far back. take a moment to observe the other players and see where they’re leaping from (success or failure, note both)
the camera drop sounds like your mouse is drifting down so pay attention to where your mouse is trending as you move it.
chaotic camera movement sounds like a sensitivity problem. but you’re not seeing any difference, so i’m not sure. you want your sensitivity high enough so small movements are enough, but not so high that it’s uncontrollable.
i believe most falls occur on the snowflakes and the stairs, there’s some breaking in past that, but you’re mostly done.
good luck, given your progress i think you’ve got this beat, you just need the experience to put it all together.
Why oh why does outnumbering in WvW even exist?
All it does is give any side with more people to automatically win any matchup, which is quite obviously a ridiculous schoolboy error by Anet.
…
I also think that Golems should either be taken out of the game, or restricted to day time use, as a hard days work fighting to win towers etc can be overturned in an hour or so by just a few night-cappers! At least this would make them have to work for their auto win.
As is mentioned, outnumbering is a player demographics outcome. If you believe in free will you should oppose any suggestion to force population balancing. If you don’t then shut up and accept our overlords’ supreme dictum.
that said, the current ruleset works well when you have evenly matched participants and kitteny otherwise.
to make things work better we should have a ruleset which permits uneven participants to engage and all sides have fun. ( i have no clue how you’d do that specifically)
OP seems to be conflating golems with the overall problem. in general golems SLOW down structure capture largely due to transport problems. admittedly portals allow transport of up to 3000 supply in golems, but it takes some serious coordination to make that work.
the current problem with the current system is for any given server there are at most 4 servers which match up well. (based on typical tiering ratings by forumers) so for best performance servers would be stuck with the same partners until the power balances change. unchanging matchups are ALSO undesirable.
ergo. competition elements have to change.
a few suggestions:
-remove positive feedback loops.
-introduce negative feedback
possible implementations:
-remove point per tick, replace with points on cap based on completed upgrades
—exception: point per tick on defense. (introduces costs to tapping structures)
-remove structure reset on capture (inherit upgrades and Broken stuff)
—permit deconstruction of upgrades (tricky to avoid trolling/griefing)
what do ppl think of the silverwaste yaks? what if they were imported to wvw?
related question. are we shooting for an asymmetric warfare simulation? or a fair game in which case we should add more gamey aspects like methods to steal other servers score.
essentially
http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci211z/2.2/Arreguin-Toft%20IS%202001.pdf
or
http://www.usgamer.net/articles/mario-kart-8-wii-u-tipstricks-how-to-boost-drift-and-master-every-item
(mario kart reference randomly selected)
I like it.
But boon removal doesn’t seem very warrior-y.
a proposal for consideration:
sundering mace- mace attacks ignore stability effects.
thoughts?
wild unfounded thinking:
-promotes use of offhand mace.
-addresses stability blocking cc effect, but in a very limited scope
does kinda mess up a nice clean stability makes you safe from cc riff, but also leaves targets protected from Other cc, ie: bulls charge won’t knockdown.
probably needs some fluff about warrior mace smashing straight through stability, will probably still need an icd, but potentially less since you’re not actually removing the stability.
proposal:
objective: normalize power block trait behavior across opponent classes.
method: instead of blocking target skill, cause interrupt causing mesmer daze skills to recharge. ie: for every interrupt, staff 5, focus 4, pistol 5, sword 4, greatsword 5 recharge by 1 second.
(purposely neglecting mantra of distraction, I don’t have the background to analyze the interaction particularly with the upcoming AoE change)
problems: no behavior like it, all other charge type abilities strictly operate off charges and do not modify existing skill recharge. oh wait, i suppose fresh air is similar, but operates on a total timer overwrite.
benefits: removes class specific concerns, the trait will not affect targets directly.
concerns: high volume area interrupts could cause continuous availability of interrupt skills. mitigated by long cooldowns on said skills, ie: chaos storm untraited at 35s could in an extremely unlikely case interrupt 30 targets (if i’m reading the wiki right) over 5s. which means on termination CS would be ready to cast again. very unlikely since daze is only one of the effects it can cause so requires perfect RNG results for all 30 targets which would also have to be doing something interruptable.
on the other hand, this may result in a daze being always available on swap.
this change would be weaker than current powerblock on non-thieves. this is partly compensated by greater available volume of interrupt chances, which is in turn balanced by the fact the practitioner would have to land those added opportunities.
Proposal Overview
This proposal is for the integration of Master’s Bond into base pet functionality. It is hoped this will improve master-pet attachment, possibly improve pet stats and functionality.
I’m including a change to the bonus mechanic which will hopefully combat the frequent resets caused by pet swap (promoted through traiting and enforced by things like swimming).
Goal of Proposal:
Make a somewhat useless trait useful and increase pet management variables.
Proposal Functionality
-Remove beastmastery trait 2: Master’s Bond.
-Integrate with base pet functionality.
-Change stack bonus from flat 8 to 3+Beastmastery trait level.
-Optional: reduce max stacks to 15.
The change in bonus will make this ability much weaker at low beastmastery traiting, but will come for free. At high beastmastery the increased bonus will help compensate for the frequent resets and will hopefully promote prolonged use of pets
The reduction of max stacks is proposed to limit the total benefit to more reasonable increases while still have a quick payback.
Associated Risks:
The bonus change may not be feasible as it will require evaluation of invested trait points, a feature not included in any other ability in the game. This limitation may break the proposal’s utility as a high fixed bonus would be too easy to exploit at such low cost and a low value would render the utility null.
The change to max stacks may not be feasible as it is a behavior not exhibited elsewhere.
Elimination of Master’s bond creates a hole in the beastmaster’s traitline.
The change in bonus means will favor heavy investment in beastmastery as you’d be getting about 4 times current and 11 times base proposed. Those uninterested in pet bonuses will still generate benefit, but at a negligible rate, although it’d make base pets very strong at low levels.
Bonus scaling value is subject to debate, primary goal was to make bonus proportional to beastmastery investment.
(edited by splat.8169)
I am generally in favor of having fewer WP’s. But as others have rightly pointed out, hard rezzing is the true enemy here. It just obliterates balance.
So I have a simple suggestion.If you get stomped, you get a debuff called ‘Defeated in Battle’, which makes you impossible to rez, period. In addition you have 30 seconds before you are auto rezzed at the original WP. The time is to allow you to choose somewhere else.
This would also go a step in stopping dead scouts.
I think stopping ppl from rezzing is not a good solution.
I’ll counter propose with a corpse interaction “Dispose of Corpse” or “Bury”. This removes the corpse from the immediate battlefield. Final destination is negociable, I’d suggest a graveyard or something, potentially close to the home spawn.
Functionally I’d suggest just reusing the rezzing routines, but have different effects. Third party teleportation may not be a feasible solution however.
Also this counter proposal does not address battlefield rezzing where your foe controls the battlefield.
Proposal Overview:
Combine alternate scoring methologies with short timespans.
Goal of Proposal:
A problem with current WvW is that the scoring system is static and consequently the playstyle is static and currently hyper-optimized. This is a case where introduction of a little variation might help.
The short time scales on EotM limit the scope of an individual match’s effect so it’s difficult to have a snowball situation wherein the match is decided in hours but the final disposition drags on for the remainder of the week. However, even these short time scales are insufficient to change to overall outcome.
Therefore it should be considered alternate scoring systems which weight different things, which will hopefully result in different behaviors and highlight different aspects of play. (I’ll neglect to be specific on scoring systems and leave that detail for general discussion)
Combined with a short time frame for these scoring cycles you avoid drastically impacting overall outcome, but still hopefully keep the game play fresh, or at least give outnumbered players something productive to do.
I would further suggest rotating these scoring systems across the maps to move populations across maps as their preferred playstyle moves. Simultaneously, this would hopefully provide all players a place to play the way they prefer. This breaks down somewhat on servers which can queue all maps.
Noticed in the patch notes: “Removed the Twisted Menders from the Grand Piazza”. This is understandable as their behavior was a bit of a surprise, so given the time constraints it was probably only feasible to remove them. For the future however, it may be better to incorporate this into your planning.
By which, what if instead you had been able to make it so killing the menders had applied a debuff, particularly if it were applied in inverse proportion to proximity. So max debuff would occur if the menders were killed directly on the boss/target.
I hope this would introduce a risk/benefit to players. When surprised by the heal they’d probably begin killing as soon as detected, resulting in lower benefit. More careful analysis would show risking the heal for the debuff to be helpful. Close proximity kills are also the most likely scenario when initially surprised and no doubt a few would leak through anyway, so the close proximity kills would help compensate for the leaks.
This type of mechanic might also be applied to existing heal cycle encounters.
>“One idea we talked about for Greatsword would be to take the evade off of the 3rd attack of the auto-chain and put it on swoop. This would give you a second on-demand defensive skill and instead we put something less timing based (for example a whirl finisher) on that third attack to empower it.”
I believe taking the evade off GS1 chain will generally lower the effective survivability in the weapon, you’re getting some crazy amounts of evade uptime if i understand correctly: 1s evade/2.56s of gs1 chain. that’s like 40% uptime.
to generate an equivalent exchange to swoop it’d need something like 4 or 5 s of evade which would be at odds with the animation.
if you have to move it, i’d suggest putting it on the counterstrike. let it protect the counter attack which often gets me killed when i get pounded by multiple melee attacks. to keep things close i’d swap counterstrike with maul and boost maul’s damage in step with its new 15s recharge.
counterstrike block would drop to something like 1.5s. makes it less useful as a missile shield, but with the new low recharge it’d offer an interesting interplay, you’d pop in and out of it trying to bait strikes to counter which would either trigger automatic stabilities or blocks (aegis) or actually knock opponents down setting up maul or hilt bash.
the problem then would seem to be the auto attack chain which looks a little uninspiring, boosting the damage or adding additional effects might solve that. (move the vuln from maul here?)
overall effect i’d guess would be weaker, but still strong defense. but slightly stronger attack. you pick up more blocks with safe counter attacks (probably wasted in 1v1, but immeasurably better in 1vX) a more bursty maul and some modification on the GS1 chain. in exchange you lose a bunch of evade uptime (much of it wasted) and concentrate maul effect into a single longer cooldown (which would still be easy to read and avoid).
this breaks from your concept of 2 on demand defense, but improves the existing while also giving slightly better access to it.
on a strategic level i’d guess the faster availability of the block might add a bit of a guessing game.
another thought, to improve the hit rate on maul, would it be possible to add a 1/4 s cripple/snare at the beginning of the cast? thoughts on effect?